Do Animals Believe In Supernatural Beings?

I once saw my cat hand-shake thin air. I think she made a deal with Satan, and her behavior at times certainly suggests as much.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

We simply do not know. How can we?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Studying the psychology of humans is hard-enough the way it is. How do we even begin studying the psychology of animals in order to compare it to human psychology?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I also dismiss much of human psychology as well. But like I said, at least with human psychology there is somewhat of a reasonable basis for linking thought patterns to behavior. As far as animals go, though, where do we have access to their thought patterns?Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I think jar is arguing that we cannot identify what animals are thinking unless we can talk to them (or otherwise communicate). It is very easy to identify what they are doing: watch them. The problem comes with trying to link the behavior to thoughts that might be considered 'beliefs in the supernatural'; we simply have no basis for making such a link when it comes to animals.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

If all you want to talk about is behavior alone with no attempt to make a link to any sort of thought process or mental state whatsoever, then perhaps you can say that some animals may behave in a way that we would see as similar to the behavior exhibited by some people who hold religious beliefs.But that is only half of the puzzle. The thread is about beliefs, not just behaviors. You still have to show that these 'religious behaviors' are explainable best by religious beliefs; if you cannot do that, then all you've got are a handful of observations to which you've attached the fancy anthropomorphism "religious"that is, all you've got is nothing.Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

As an example of the sort of poor reasoning that I (and some others) have been discussing, here is an excerpt from a book called Circles and Standing Stones by Evan Hadingham:

quote:

---

Circles and Standing Stones (1975, p. 29):

​

The most exciting finds at Star Carr were twenty stag frontlets, the antlers still connected to part of the skull, which was lightened and perforated so that it could be worn on the top of the head. Was this mask adopted as a kind of camouflage, as sympathetic magic to attract the deer, or was it used to re-enact the hunt at some form of ritual afterwards? The antler frontlets are the first evidence of beliefs or superstition of any kind yet found in prehistoric Britain.

---

Of the multiple interpretations possible (several of which were mentioned in the excerpt), what is the logic for drawing the conclusion that is drawnthat the find is evidence of 'beliefs or superstition'? Why are the other possible explanations thrown out in favor of the religious one?What has allowed folk to make the link to 'beliefs or superstition' based on this evidence?
What would allow folk to make the link to 'beliefs or superstition' based on similar evidence in animals?JonEdited by Jon, : inclusive

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

The legitimacy of these inferences is yet to be determined, as we've still no way to verify our conclusions regarding mental motivations for various behaviors in critters with whom we cannot communicate at least rudimentarily.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Not really, no. At least not legitimately.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

When did this discussion turn from 'do animals believe in supernatural beings' to 'do animals possess human-like linguistic capabilities'? For anyone with even a slim exposure to the outside world, the answer to the latter question should be pretty obvious: no animal has yet to be found that possesses (or can even be taught) human-like linguistic communication. On top of that, there have already been several threads here discussing this notion; do we really need another?If one wishes to disentangle the claims so far made that a language-like communicative channel must first exist between a human researcher and his subjects, they will find themself horribly unsuccessful if they attempt that task by pointing out higher-level cognitive functions and language-like abilities in primatesnone of these things have a shred of evidence backing them, and are laughable claims even to the layman let alone a majority of the scientific community.A better approach might be to argue that such a communicative channel is not necessary to infer supernatural beliefs from the observance of outward actions/behaviors. Successfully demonstrating this would go far to counter one's opponents who claim that higher-level communication is necessary for inferences of these beliefs.Why not present that argument? It would save time.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

My recommendation was as advice to youbefore you make yourself look more ridiculous than you already look.But, carry on.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

To add to some of what you've said: Interestingly, deaf sleep-'talkers' do their sleeptalking in sign language. The specific medium doesn't seem overly important to the system of Language. That said, if chimps were capable of Language, there is no reason they should not be presenting the same evidence as deaf humans (since, obviously, chimps cannot use their vocal apparatus for the task). No animal, chimps included, have shown this ability. Thus, I think it's safe to say that so far humans are the only critters with Language abilities. And, of course, this brings us back to the same old problem as before: even if these critters held beliefs in supernatural beings, how on Earth could we possibly know without communicating with them linguistically? No other means even half as reliable have ever been found for relating such ideas.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Language is undoubtedly extremely important as a means of higher-level thinking. That Language is utilized for certain aspects of cognition does not mean it is utilized for all aspects; and that it may not be utilized for all aspects does not prevent it from being utilized for some. LOL. I thought the discussion was on abstract notions; 'water in the cup' is most certainly very concrete. That link supports CS's claim:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Mentalese:

​

The Language of thought hypothesis applies to thoughts which have propositional content, and as such is not meant to describe everything that goes on in the mind. However, the aim of the theory is to accurately describe the way in which our thoughts relate by providing a semantic structure for our thoughts. In the most basic form, the theory states that thought follows the same rules as language; thought has syntax. In order for the theory to accomplish this, it must claim that the linguistic tokens used in mental language must be simple concepts; of course, these simple concepts taken together with logical rules can be manipulated to form significantly more complex concepts.

---

Mentalese, as it is hypothesized, relies on the same cognitive functions involved in Language. When repeated attempts to teach non-humans the use of Language fail, the reasonable conclusion to draw is that these critters lack those cognitive functions necessary, and are thereby incapable of Mentalese. Isn't providing that evidence up to you? Who cares if it is possible or impossible? Until such a time that we can reliably test whether or not those beliefs actually exist, all we have is endless conjecture. The issue is not thought in general, but a specific type of thought. Does the case study challenge that Language is required for the higher-level thought being discussed in this thread?JonEdited by Jon, : rhetoric

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

And how would we know you were thinking of that?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I take that as only one part of the purpose of this thread; unless we are to say that the thread title no longer applies, we also have to investigate the belief aspects that may be associated with any given behavior.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr